Reports that have been submitted to Council can be downloaded from: http://www3.hants.gov.uk/scrutiny/scrutiny-committees/environment-transportation/cx-policyunitlyndhurstbypass.htm

LYNDHURST BYPASS SCRUTINY REVIEW REPORT

December 2007

Foreword

By Councillor Peter Hutcheson,

Chairman, Environment and Transportation Select Committee

Congestion has been a long standing issue for the residents of Lyndhurst, and for the greater number of people who both visit and pass through this delightful `capital of the New Forest'.

Hampshire County Council has worked with partner agencies and the public over the years to put in place traffic solutions that would relieve the congested roads, and some of these have had good effect. The desire for a bypass to route traffic that does not need to come into Lyndhurst away from the village has been a constant theme of local discussion and led to the promotion of a Bill in Parliament in the 1980s. Following the demise of that Bill, other measures have been pursued, and further local dialogue has resulted in additional improvements.

However, the strength of feeling for further consideration of a bypass has never gone away. Accordingly, Hampshire County Council's Environment and Transportation Select Committee welcomed the opportunity to include this in its work programme for 2007/08.

Ultimately, there are many people in Hampshire, as well as visitors to that part of the county, who have an interest in the outcome of this scrutiny, as well as the outcome of the ongoing work led by the Hampshire County Council Environment Department in its work as Highways Authority. We hope that our review group deliberations will be accepted as a contribution to identifying the right steps for the future.

LYNDHURST BYPASS SCRUTINY REVIEW REPORT

Executive Summary

Background

1.1 This scrutiny review, which was set up as part of the Environment and

Transportation Select Committee work programme, ran from July to December 2007.

1.2 The scrutiny was carried out against a lengthy history of discussions about a

bypass solution for Lyndhurst's problems

1.3 The purpose of the review was to arrive at a view about whether or not to

recommend to the Hampshire County Council Cabinet that a bypass for Lyndhurst should be included as a major road scheme submission for funding to the south east Regional Transport Board in 2008.

1.4 The review group set its objectives through posing three questions:

· What are the current traffic problems and highways issues in Lyndhurst?

· What are the possible solutions to these problems?

· Of the range of possible solutions, would a bypass be a viable and deliverable option?

Conclusions

1.5 Considerable information came to the review group's attention regarding the

village's traffic and highways problems, supplied by the range of stakeholders invited to give evidence, as well as members of the public. Issues raised included the limitations of certain highways and junctions, the movement of Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs), noise and air pollution, and severe congestion.

1.6 The review group recognises and sympathises with the traffic and highways

issues encountered by Lyndhurst residents as well as other drivers passing

through the village. However, from the evidence received, it inclines to the

view that these are in many ways intrinsically connected to those of

neighbouring villages and, indeed, to those of the New Forest as a whole, and

therefore need to be understood in that context.

1.7 The group is also convinced that air quality must be given equal weight to that

of congestion. Any measures to tackle the latter must be capable of addressing

the former, in particular, by keeping the traffic free flowing along the High

Street and the substantial removal of HGVs from the worst affected areas.

1.8 With regard to possible solutions to Lyndhurst's problems, these appeared to

be many and varied, some worked up with the primary purpose of relieving the air quality problem in the High Street, others such as the Lyndhurst Parish Council bypass proposal aimed at diverting unnecessary traffic away from the village, and others such as the Hampshire County Council/Mott Gifford packages of options designed to meet both of these objectives. In addition, Brockenhurst Parish Council had given some thought to how to take a New Forest wide approach to traffic management in order to relieve pressure in villages such as Lyndhurst and Brockenhurst.

1.9 The level of detail varied in relation to the possible solutions, as might be expected. The opinion formed by the end of the review was that detailed identification of both bypass options and non bypass options had been undertaken, though this information only became available towards the conclusion of the review. These options now need to be fully explored with local people.

1.10 Although the focus of the review was on the merits of a bypass solution, the review group came to the view that there were further opportunities to explore the scope for building on the work undertaken by Hampshire County Council in the 1990s. There was also a wish for short term measures to be put in place, for example to deal with the problems associated with HGVs in the village.

1.11 All the Lyndhurst focused bypass options made known to the review had been subject to a rigorous assessment against local criteria, cost and Department of Transport objectives. No evidence was received to suggest that similar work was underway or had been carried out with regard to a New Forest wide bypass solution.

1.12 While there appear to be no obvious design feasibility barriers, the review group are concerned that the costs of some of the bypass options, including the Lyndhurst Parish Council option, are too high in relation to the benefits.

1.13 The review group noted that regional and national transport policy required that additional highway capacity should only be promoted when all other options had been exhausted. From evidence received it is apparent that a number of non bypass solutions are available and therefore should be pursued.

1.14 In terms of the Regional Transport Board prioritisation methodology, the group could not envisage that a bypass would score highly in terms of policy compatibility with key regional strategies.

1.15 The nature of the environmental constraints are considerable for any bypass solution given that they would impact on one, or more than one, type of designated site. The pathway through an Appropriate Assessment under the European Union Habitats Directive, for example, is stringent, and it is the conclusion of the review group that a bypass solution would be likely to fall under this Assessment. In addition, the group believes that National Park requirements in relation to the public interest and the exploration of alternatives, as well as the Verderer power of veto over this type of development under the New Forest Acts, would also work against a bypass solution.

1.16 The review group cannot support additional road development, as outlined in the New Forest wide bypass proposal, in the light of background research that suggests that more road space generates extra traffic. The affordability and environmental considerations would present insurmountable problems.

1.17 Taking account of the above points, particularly those in para 1.15, the review group's conclusion is that they could not recommend to Hampshire County Council Cabinet that a bypass solution be prioritised as a major scheme bid to the Regional Transport Board in 2008. The review group does not believe that, at this point in time, it is possible to demonstrate that the stringent criteria relating to planning, the environment and legislation can be met. Key reasons for this include:

· the full range of alternatives have yet to be explored

· the potential environmental impact is considerable

· it is likely that a solution for Lyndhurst will result in the problems moving elsewhere

1.18 Finally, in addition to advising against the prioritisation of a bypass for Lyndhurst the review group supports the implementation of various short term measures, as well as the further exploration of the non bypass options prioritised in the Hampshire County Council/Mott Gifford Transport Study Report 2007.

Recommendations

A Hampshire County Council should exercise whatever influence it can,

either in its own right, or in partnership with other County Councils, to

ensure that manufacturers of satellite navigation systems include road

restriction information.

B Given current information from Lyndhurst traffic surveys that a large percentage of vehicles are local as opposed to through traffic, the review group would wish to see exploratory work on the potential for smarter travel choices in Lyndhurst reducing the need to travel by private car.

C As a short term measure, Hampshire County Council should seek the cooperation of the Highways Agency to make the signage on the M27 and at Cadnam directed at Heavy Goods Vehicles more explicit regarding restrictions on accessing Lyndhurst, except for lorries making local deliveries.

D Hampshire County Council should use its influence, together with partners, to support a review of the level of penalty fine for HGVs contravening the lorry restrictions to enhance its effect, and to ensure greater efforts are made by the police to enforce the restrictions.

E Hampshire County Council should put in place a communication plan which would make it clear to people what information they can expect to receive at different stages of the work to resolve Lyndhurst's traffic problems, and how they can contribute to and inform this process.

F Outcomes from the planned Hampshire County Council led local engagement, and the further consideration of options identified in the 2007 Study Report should be communicated to the Environment and Transportation Select Committee in summer 2008 as part of the scrutiny monitoring work of the committee.

G The review group recommends further trialling of the use of variable message signs on the M27 to direct drivers away from congestion hot spots in the New Forest such as Lyndhurst and routeing tourists to park and ride pick up points for the New Forest open top tourist bus.

H Hampshire County Council should prioritise New Forest wide approaches to traffic management with a view to known hot-spots such as Lyndhurst benefiting from such measures.

I In the light of viability and deliverability issues examined, the review group could not support the prioritisation of either a Lyndhurst focused bypass or a New Forest wide bypass at the present time. Concerns are those connected with the costs over benefits, as well as those relating to environmental impacts, given the stringent tests associated with an Appropriate Assessment under the Habitat Regulations, the potential adverse effects identified and the range of alternative measures that would be likely to have lesser environmental effect than a bypass, and have yet to be tested.

J The group supports the further exploration of the two package options and the lower cost option of demand management measures, such as junction improvements, one way system revisions etc. in the village, as identified by Hampshire County Council/Mott Gifford. (See page 17)

1. Introduction

1. 1 At the 5 April 2007 meeting of the Environment and Transportation Select

Committee, the traffic and highways issues of Lyndhurst was adopted as a

subject for scrutiny review.

1.2 The immediate background to the review was the identification of the topic by those attending a New Forest Transport Seminar in Beaulieu in 2006. Prior to the Seminar, the idea of a bypass as a possible solution for Lyndhurst's congestion problems had received attention from a sub group of the New Forest Transport Strategy Panel. This Panel had considered a range of traffic management and road based solutions for Lyndhurst, but had issued a statement in 2006 saying that a Lyndhurst bypass was not deliverable. Local debate continued on the topic, voiced in particular by Lyndhurst Parish Council. In order to respond to the strength of local opinion, the Leader of Hampshire County Council decided to refer the matter to the Environment and Transportation Select Committee for a scrutiny review of the case for a bypass in Lyndhurst. The decision identified for scrutiny to influence was whether Hampshire County Council would prioritise a bypass proposal in the list of major schemes to be submitted to the Regional Transport Board in 2008.

1.3 The scrutiny was carried out against a lengthy history of discussions about a bypass solution for Lyndhurst's problems. The review group was advised that such an idea was first mooted a hundred years earlier; a more recent chronology, dating from the 1950s was available to the review, and this included information about bypass routes identified in public consultations carried out by Hampshire County Council in the 1980s which preceded a Private Bill to Parliament in 1987. That Bill, having been rejected by the House of Commons Select Committee in 1988, was not followed by any further initiative led by Hampshire County Council to pursue a bypass option.

2. Terms of Reference

2.1 Purpose:

To arrive at a view about whether or not to recommend to the Hampshire County Council Cabinet that a bypass for Lyndhurst should be included as a major road scheme submission for funding to the south east Regional Transport Board in 2008.

2.2 The review group set its objectives through posing three questions:

· What are the current traffic problems and highway issues in Lyndhurst?

· What are the possible solutions to these problems?

· Of the range of possible solutions, would a bypass be a viable and deliverable option?

3. Review Organisation

3.1 Cllr Peter Hutcheson agreed to lead the scrutiny review group. The full

membership was:

· Peter Hutcheson (Chairman, Church Crookham and Ewshot)

· Nigel Clarke (Ringwood)

· Mark Cooper (Romsey Town)

· Lee Dunsdon (South Waterside)

· Geoff Hockley (Fareham Titchfield)

· Prof. John Preston (Expert member, Southampton University)

3.2 The review group held its first meeting on the 31 July 2007, where it agreed

the project plan for the review, received initial background information and

began work on identifying key stakeholders.

3.3 The evidence was received in a select committee style review, which included evidence gathering through:

· invitations to stakeholders to contribute written views

· a day long meeting in public in Lyndhurst to receive oral evidence from invited witnesses

A full list of those who have contributed to this process is shown in Appendix One. The programme for the oral evidence meeting in public is attached as Appendix Two.

In addition, the group familiarised itself, first hand, with the road layout in the

village.

Information about the review, including evidence received, was made available to the public on the Hampshire County Council review webpage -

4.1.1 The review posed the question of `what are the current traffic and highway issues in Lyndhurst?'

4.1.2 Written and oral evidence received provided information to the review from a variety of stakeholders, including local authorities, other statutory agencies, residents groups and members of the public, including a MORI residents' public opinion survey carried out in November 2007. Salient issues considered by the review group based on evidence received are:

a) Limitations of the highways and junctions

Limitations arise from the meeting of two `A' roads, the A337 and the A35, in the middle of the village. Roads that were designed in former years for lesser amounts of traffic and smaller vehicles are having to cope now not only with increased volume of traffic movement but also with larger vehicles, primarily modern heavy goods vehicles and caravans as well.

The constrained geometry of the High Street/Romsey Road junction, in particular, causes difficulties for HGVs which have larger tracking arcs than private vehicles. Evidence from Hampshire County Council and Lyndhurst Parish Council referred to the difficulties this leads to for vehicles turning left from the A35 into Romsey Road and turning left from Romsey Road into the High Street. The location of buildings adjacent to these highways junctions creates a canyon type effect that limits the quick dispersal of vehicle fumes and contributes significantly to localised poor air quality issues.

Other places where difficulties arise are the Shrubbs Hill Road/Bournemouth Road/High Street junction where, in heavy traffic, it is not easy for drivers to change lanes, the Gosport Lane/High Street/Southampton Road junction and the Goose Green area where the A35 and the A337 routes converge.

`All of the geometry constraints at the above junctions contribute to congestion within the village and therefore to poor air quality, especially in the High Street, which has been designated an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA). Hampshire County Council/Mott Gifford.

Facilities in and around Lyndhurst for pedestrians were described as `moderate', and dedicated provision for cyclists is very limited.

`Within the village there is little space for cyclists, and pedestrian footpaths are narrow, running alongside the congested roads'. Hampshire County Council/Mott Gifford

b) HGVs and other long vehicles

Evidence from county, district and local councils referred to the impact of the increase in size, length and frequency of HGVs in Lyndhurst. Traffic flow surveys had shown that while the majority of HGVs travel into Lyndhurst following the designated lorry route, not all do.

The review heard from the Executive Member about how efforts had been made to work with the police to enforce the restrictions on HGV movements through Lyndhurst, but that, generally, difficulties with enforcement had not led to the hoped for reduced HGV movements. The Executive Member could envisage possible additional restrictions, such as a partial daytime ban.

Lyndhurst Parish Council and New Forest District Council described how HGVs, which make up 4% of traffic flow, cause 30% of air pollution.

Members of the public also expressed their concern to the review about the impact HGVs were having on the village, giving personal accounts of them ignoring the HGV restrictions and thereby causing delay to other traffic and inconvenience to pedestrians.

The review heard that where lorry drivers are adhering to the HGV restrictions this is at some cost to operators with a consequential cost to the larger community in the New Forest.

Members of the public as well as Lyndhurst Parish Council suggested that some of these inappropriate HGV movements were linked to satellite navigation guidance systems that is designed for car drivers which do not incorporate road restrictions.

Recommended action:

Hampshire County Council should exercise whatever influence it can, either in its own right, or in partnership with other County Councils, to ensure that manufacturers of satellite navigation systems include road restriction information

c) Through traffic issues

The review group received detailed written evidence from Hampshire County Council about up to date figures relating to through traffic, as measured in traffic surveys in the Lyndhurst area carried out in June and August 2007. These surveys indicated that 60% of traffic was travelling through the village as opposed to stopping. This contrasted with previous figures of 80%, the difference being accounted for by the use of different methodologies; the review was assured that the most recent methodology is the most reliable.

Recommended action:

Given current information from Lyndhurst traffic surveys that a large percentage of vehicles are local as opposed to through traffic, the review group would wish to see exploratory work on the potential for smarter travel choices in Lyndhurst reducing the need to travel by private car.

d) Noise and air pollution

Evidence of air pollution issues was supplied in detail by New Forest District Council, which is responsible for the management of air quality in the New Forest. The review learned how an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) had been identified in 2005 in Lyndhurst, the excess of nitrogen dioxide being the direct consequence of traffic congestion in the High Street as opposed to traffic volume. Air pollution levels are highest west of the traffic lights at the intersection of the A35 and the A337 -

`where the configuration of the narrow street with tall buildings on either side produces a canyon effect trapping the pollutants emitted from the idling traffic at the lights'. New Forest District Council.

To meet national objectives for air quality, a reduction of 25% in nitrogen dioxide is required by 2010; a draft Air Quality Action Plan had been developed and consulted on at the time of the review, containing a number of options to achieve the improvement, one of which is a bypass option.

It was the opinion of The New Forest District Council that effective measures to improve air quality must involve the free flow of traffic in the High Street, and the removal of HGVs from the worst affected sections of the High Street.

Lyndhurst, other local Parish Councils and Hampshire County Council also commented on the noise and air pollution in the village -

`The heavily trafficked roads in the village make noise an everyday occurrence for many residents and to the pedestrian on the High Street or on Shrubbs Hill Road it makes for an uncomfortable environment due to the proximity of the vehicle movements, particularly HGVs'. New Forest District Council

Written evidence from the Health Protection Unit pointed out that no one had shown that the levels of nitrogen dioxide were in fact having an adverse effect on people's health. However, the review group did not hear from any sources that this had been proved not to be the case. It is because the standards set nationally are being exceeded that an inference is made that the levels could be having such an effect and hence they need to be reduced.

Air quality is also a concern to the public, including the local Chamber of Trade, as expressed in written and oral evidence.

`Many people stated that they were put off shopping in Lyndhurst due to the traffic fumes, the dangers in crossing the road'. Lyndhurst Area Plan Steering Group Committee

e) Severe congestion

Congestion was highlighted in the November 2007 residents' survey in Lyndhurst and surrounding areas.

While most respondents used the private car as their main means of transport, a large percentage felt that their local area was worse than it was ten years ago, with an increase in traffic, traffic congestion, and too many lorries the most commonly cited reasons for those views.

Looking at how satisfied or dissatisfied residents were with certain aspects of Lyndhurst and its surrounding area, dissatisfaction was higher with the volume than the speed of traffic in Lyndhurst village centre. Dissatisfaction was also evident with the volume of road traffic in the surrounding New Forest areas.

Severe congestion was also highlighted by nearly all respondents to the review.

The nature of the congestion was described by many in terms of lengthy queuing and slow moving traffic, affecting both local residents as well as visitors to the area who are either trying to visit Lyndhurst itself or travelling through the village to other destinations.

`Lyndhurst's traffic problem is now so acute that on my regular journeys between Cadnam and Lyndhurst I have found that the traffic is so solid and so slow moving between the M27 and Lyndhurst that it often takes up to 40 minutes to cover these few miles'. Member of the public.

The consequences of the congestion were variously described as contributing to an erosion of the village environment, creating safety hazards, detracting from Lyndhurst as `The capital of the New Forest' , deterring people from wanting to shop there, unpredictable lengths of car journeys by local people, delaying public transport and emergency services.

Additional, more detailed information about journey times was made available through Hampshire County Council's 2007 traffic surveys on the volume and movement of traffic in and around Lyndhurst. This information showed the difference in journey times between different roads in the village, varying from shorter times on journeys from the A35 East to the A337 South to longer times for all traffic travelling to the A337 North.

Other evidence from Hampshire County Council showed traffic growth over ten years as minimal on the A337 North and South. This compared to a drop of 5% over ten years for the A35 East and West.

f) Knock-on effects in surrounding villages and the wider Forest

Views were expressed about the connections between Lyndhurst's congestion problems and those of neighbouring villages and areas. Driver tactics to avoid congestion in Lyndhurst lead to `rat runs' on minor roads in neighbouring areas -

Other consequences of Lyndhurst's congestion problems that were put to the review were difficulties for people in the southern coastal towns needing to access the strategic road network north of Lyndhurst, and the danger of drivers speeding on other Forest roads in order to make up journey time lost in going through Lyndhurst.

Brockenhurst Parish Council expressed a concern that building a bypass at Lyndhurst or any of the main villages on the Southampton to Lymington road, would serve to move the congestion to the next constriction point.

g) Wider New Forest context

Brockenhurst and Lyndhurst Parish Council pointed out how the traffic and highway issues in Lyndhurst have been affected by such things as the national increase in traffic, improvements to the national road network as well as the boom in house building along the Waterside and the coastline from Lymington to Christchurch. This was described as putting -

`additional pressure on Lyndhurst as a through route whilst tending to isolate it as a desirable destination'. Lyndhurst Parish Council.

`Development pressures on the coastal strip are driven by desire rather than need, particularly, second and holiday homes. This exacerbates the traffic levels in Lyndhurst and on the A337'. Brockenhurst Parish Council.

Evidence was also received that put Lyndhurst's current traffic and highway problems in the context of future housing development as outlined in the South East Spatial Strategies. The review group understands that there is likely to be a similar impact arising from the South West Spatial Strategy.

`It is possible that trip generation arising from these additional houses could add to traffic volumes in Lyndhurst, and the New Forest highway network as a whole, unless appropriate mitigation is taken. This additional trip generation might be in the form of `cross park' commuting traffic or recreation trips'. New Forest National Park

Comments

1. The review group recognises and sympathises with the traffic and highways issues encountered by Lyndhurst residents as well as other drivers passing through the town. However, from the evidence received, it inclines to the view that these are in many ways intrinsically connected to those of neighbouring villages, and, indeed, to those of the New Forest as a whole, and therefore need to be understood in that context.

2. While recognising that the percentage of HGVs in Lyndhurst are low compared to other villages, the inconvenience caused by the growth of HGVs, as described by witnesses and members of the public, in the review group's opinion, call for measures to limit and control these vehicles.

3. The issue of air quality must be given equal weight to that of congestion. Any measures to tackle the latter must be capable of addressing the former, in particular, by keeping the traffic free flowing along the High Street and the removal of HGVs from the worst affected areas.

4.2 Possible Solutions to Lyndhurst's problems

4.2.1 The question considered by the review group was - `what are the possible solutions to the current traffic and highway issues in Lyndhurst?'

4.2.2 The review group was provided with a number of ideas for solving the village's problems, as perceived by the respondents, in both written and oral evidence. These ranged from solutions that were specifically Lyndhurst focused, to those that were much broader, encompassing other parts of the New Forest.

4.2.3 In addition, detailed options for relieving Lyndhurst's traffic issues and congestion was provided by Hampshire County Council/Mott Gifford in the `Lyndhurst Transport Study Report' December 2007.

4.2.4 The level of detail of the various solutions put forward varied considerably, as would be expected. The review group has given equal attention to the less detailed and the more detailed ideas, recognising that brief contributions, received from individual members of the public for example, are valuable in that they originate from people's experience of living in or near to the traffic problems.

· attention to HGVs and other heavy weight vehicles - ban or restrictions across the whole of the New Forest, access exemptions

· a basket of measures

· appropriate signage and information points on the M27

· routeing strategy for the whole of the New Forest

· `area' traffic management - Lyndhurst, Emery Down, Minstead

· road classification changes

· Park and Ride for the New Forest

· road closures at peak times

4.2.5 Solutions that had been developed to any level of detail were the various bypass routes, as contributed by Lyndhurst Parish Council and Hampshire County Council/Mot Gifford, demand management options and packages of options. In addition, an outline idea for a New Forest wide bypass option was submitted by Brockenhurst Parish Council.

a) Lyndhurst bypass options

The Lyndhurst Parish Council route is an outer eastern route, being a two mile diversion of the A337 to the east of Lyndhurst, rejoining the A337 south of Lyndhurst, close to Goose Green. This option includes a cut and cover tunnel to minimise the impact on high quality landscape, with a number of animal underpasses and farm bridges.

In the Hampshire County Council/Mott Gifford report, the bypass options originally consisted of six outer eastern routes, including the Lyndhurst Parish Council option, ten inner eastern, 4 inner western, an outer western option, and four ¾ options. These had been narrowed down to five best performing bypass options. The Lyndhurst Parish Council route was not included in these.

(i)an outer eastern route

(ii) an inner eastern route

(iii) an inner western route

(iv) a ¾ option comprising inner east and outer west links

(v) a ¾ option comprising inner west and inner east links

Fifty four per cent of the MORI survey respondents were familiar with the idea of a bypass scheme passing away from the village and a similar percentage with a bypass separated from but running fairly close to the edge of the village. More people supported the idea of the latter than the former, but a clear proportion of people would be opposed to both as a scheme for Lyndhurst.

b) New Forest wide option - Brockenhurst Parish Council

Brockenhurst Parish council are of the opinion that, `it is unlikely that a series of small bypass solutions along the A35/A337 route will resolve the long-term problem'. They have however, highlighted three possible alternative routes for forest-wide options.

(i) Ashurst to Brockenhurst, running parallel to the railway line.

(ii) A route west of Brockenhurst to Picket Post, using much of the disused

Brockenhurst to Ringwood railway line.

(iii) A modification of the above idea - a route to Picket Post from Lymington.

Running from Buckland rings, it might join the B3055 at the Arnewood bends where either the existing B3055 could be widened as far as Stem Lane New Milton, or a new road built to an interchange with the A35 south of the old Holmsley airfield. The newly formed road with the section of the A35 towards Christchurch would create a new bypass for the coastal towns from Lymington to Somerford. A further section of new road from the interchange would run northwards, close to the Heritage Area boundary, to the A31 near Picket Post. Together the coastal towns bypass and road to Picket Post would form a Western New Forest Bypass from Lymington to the A31.

c) Non bypass options

Various non bypass possible options for Lyndhurst were outlined by Hampshire County Council/Mott Gifford:

- junction modifications

- car parking strategy

- road declassification

- management of the High Street

Three junction modification options were appraised as likely to have slight beneficial as opposed to neutral or adverse impact outcomes: High Street/A337 Romsey Road, Gosport Lane two way, Gosport Lane two way and signalling at Shrubbs Hill/High Street.

As well as stand- alone demand management options above, the review received information from the same source about possible packages of options comprising of road provision combined with traffic management measures. A new link road would be an integral part of any such package; only a link that had featured as part of the recommended best performing bypass options was included.

Two packages were identified -

(i) a north western link road away from the village, with demand management measures: closure of the High Street, modifications to the one-way system and relocation of the village car park

(ii) a north eastern link road close to the village, with closure of the High Street,

modifications to the one-way system, and relocation of the car park

Both link roads would lead to impacts on and loss of internationally designated natural habitat, the north western link more so than the north eastern link. Although these packages would involve slightly more loss of land than the stand-alone demand management options, they would still provide the necessary air quality improvements to the High Street. No buildings are expected to be lost as junction improvements could be more easily accommodated in the existing highway. They would require a higher level of land take than the stand-alone demand management options, and would result in significant adverse landscape impact.

Other key demand management measures which would be part of any Hampshire County Council/Mott Gifford solution would be:

- enforcement of the HGV restrictions throughout Lyndhurst village area

- updated Variable Messaging System

- public transport strategy for Lyndhurst to improve the quality and quantity of service provision

- improved facilities for pedestrians and cyclists within Lyndhurst, primarily within the High Street and adjacent areas

Comments

1. The review group considers that opportunities have been missed in not exploring to the full the traffic improvement measures identified in the Milton Transport Management Report, 1992, and brought to the attention of the review by New Forest District Council and Lyndhurst Parish Council.

2. The members shared some concern about the possible negative impact of wider traffic management measures to ameliorate congestion in Lyndhurst on the coastal towns.

3. At its oral evidence session, the review group was made aware of further work being progressed by Hampshire County Council with regard to optioneering work on bypass and other solutions to Lyndhurst's traffic problems. It noted that key organisations representing Lyndhurst residents had not yet been able to feed into this. The review group welcomed confirmation that local stakeholders would be engaged in taking this work forward and that new ways of responding to these issues would be explored.

4. There was an appreciation of the detailed examination of Lyndhurst focused bypass and other solutions contained in the Lyndhurst Transport Study Report, which, due to the timing of the optioneering work described in it, became available to the review towards the conclusion of its work. The review group is keen to hear how the report recommendations will now be progressed.

Recommended actions:

As a short term measure, Hampshire County Council should seek the cooperation of the Highways Agency to make the signage on the M27 and at Cadnam, directed at HGVs, more explicit regarding restrictions on accessing Lyndhurst except for lorries making local deliveries.

Hampshire County Council should use its influence, together with partners, to support a review of the level of penalty fine for HGVs contravening the lorry restrictions to enhance its effect, and to ensure greater efforts are made by the police to enforce the restrictions.

Hampshire County Council should put in place a communication plan which would make it clear to people what information they can expect to receive at different stages of the work to resolve Lyndhurst's traffic problems, and how they can contribute to and inform this process.

Outcomes from the planned Hampshire County Council led local engagement, and the further consideration of options identified in the 2007 Study Report, should be communicated to the Environment and Transportation Select Committee in summer 2008 as part of the scrutiny monitoring work of the committee.

4.3 Viability and deliverability of a bypass option for Lyndhurst

4.3.1 The third question that the scrutiny review group members posed at the outset

of the review was:

Of the range of possible solutions to Lyndhurst's traffic and highways

issues, would a bypass be a viable and deliverable option ?

Answers to this question would enable the members to arrive at recommendations to put to the Cabinet in 2008 as to whether Hampshire County Council should prioritise a Lyndhurst bypass as a major scheme bid to the Regional Transport Board. In view of the evidence received by the review group on possible bypass options, this part of the report addresses both Lyndhurst focused options as well as the case for New Forest wide options.

Viability

4.3.2 In its deliberations, the group took `viability' to refer to the bypass being able to be put in place; constraints would be those intrinsic to the project such as affordability and design feasibility.

4.3.2.1 With regard to Lyndhurst focused bypass options, some estimations of costs

were provided by Hampshire County Council/Mott Gifford for the five best

performing routes ranging from £7m to £16.5m (plus development and

process costs). As their work had also included the Lyndhurst Parish Council

proposal, costs had been estimated for that option as well and were given as

£51.4m with a tunnel and £18.9m with a land bridge. No cost data was

available from any sources in relation to the New Forest bypass routes.

4.3.2.2 No funding has been identified within Hampshire County Council capital

programmes for a bypass scheme; reliance would be on securing funding from

regional government for schemes in excess of £5m. The Regional Transport

Board has allocated all its funds up to 2016.

4.3.2.3 Evidence of detailed design was not available for possible Lyndhurst

bypass routes. Certain engineering considerations such as carriageway

standards, assumptions about junctions where existing roads would meet

the bypass, and the provision of a tunnel or a land bridge for any option were

described in the Hampshire County Council/Mott Gifford report. Costs and

major engineering constraints were identified for a tunnel, for example

associated with the likelihood that its construction would be below the level of

the ground water table. However, no insurmountable design difficulties were

identified at this stage.

4.3.2.4 Estimates of the cost of an Appropriate Assessment under conservation

regulations ranged from £235,000 to £1m.

Comments

1. While there appear to be no obvious design feasibility barriers, the review group are concerned that the costs of certain Lyndhurst focused bypass options, including the Lyndhurst Parish Council option, are too high in relation to the benefits, as described in the Hampshire County Council/Mott Gifford study.

Deliverability

4.3.4 `Deliverability' was taken as referring to any scheme being seen through from start to finish; constraints here would be those contexts that would affect the progression of a bypass, such as legislative and regulatory contexts.

4.3.5 The review group, through background research in the preparatory stage of the review, became aware of the various constraints affecting a bypass solution: planning, legislative, environmental, policy, as well as those specific to the New Forest such as the Verderers Court. Within the time and resourcing available to the review, the members focused their attention on policy and environmental constraints.

4.3.6 Alignment with national, regional and local policy

4.3.6.1 National policy

a) national transport policy

Background research and written and oral evidence made mention of :

· the need to demonstrate that a bid for government funding for a major transport scheme is consistent with and will contribute towards local, regional and possibly national objectives in transport and other relevant areas.

· the Government's 5 objectives for transport:

- to protect the built and natural environment

- to improve safety

- to support sustainable economic activity and get good value for money

- to improve access to facilities for those without a car and to reduce severance

- to ensure that all decisions are taken in the context of the government's integrated transport policy and other relevant policies

· the need to demonstrate the case for a scheme in terms of its Appraisal and Value for Money, Delivery, Financial and Commercial aspects

· the need to demonstrate clearly that a new road or additional road capacity is the required solution and that the full range of alternatives have been assessed. Alternatives include:

- demand management measures

- public transport

- infrastructure regulation

Comments

1. If a major scheme bid is to be made, it could be argued that it is in keeping with the national transport policy objective of protecting the built environment i.e. the village of Lyndhurst, although the review group learned that the best performing bypass options would involve significant land take or severance, making it less likely that the case would be supported. It could also be seen as in line with national policy of removing bottlenecks to make best use of the whole asset.

2. Evidence of the case for a Lyndhurst bypass route was made available in respect of an outer, eastern route by Lyndhurst Parish Council. Appraisal of a variety of Lyndhurst bypass routes by Hampshire County Council/Mott Gifford, including the Lyndhurst Parish Council proposal, had been undertaken involving assessment against national and local objectives; the assessment concluded that all routes were contrary to national and local policy. The review group understood that no work on demonstrating the case for a New Forest wide route was being progressed.

3. In terms of assessing alternatives to new or additional road capacity, the Hampshire County Council Lyndhurst focused optioneering work had assessed new road capacity in the shape of a bypass against demand management measures and package measures. The review group noted reference made by the Executive Member to pursuing shuttle bus routes between Lyndhurst and Brockenhurst, and between Lyndhurst and Ashurst; it suggests that public transport alternatives are included in future work.

b) National Park Policy

Written and oral evidence made reference to the fact that:

· major development should not take place in the National Parks save in exceptional circumstances

· a determined search should be made for alternatives which do not involve upgrading an existing route or new construction

· applications for such developments must be subject to the most rigorous examination and be demonstrated to be in the public interest. Examples might include:

- serious risk to human health and safety

- national security

- clear and direct environmental benefit on a national or international scale

- failure to proceed would have unacceptable social and/or economic consequences

· consideration would include an assessment of

- the need for the development in terms of national considerations, and the impact of permitting it or refusing it on the local economy

- the cost of, and scope for, developing elsewhere outside the area or meeting the need in some other way

- any detrimental effect on the environment and the landscape, and the extent to which it should be moderated

Comments

1. Of the Lyndhurst focused bypass options made known to the review, all had been subject to a rigorous assessment against local criteria, (including the maintenance of local business and tourism in Lyndhurst and the wider New Forest, the effect on the environment), cost and Department for Transport objectives.

2. Other non bypass solutions for Lyndhurst had also been similarly assessed.

3. The review received no evidence to suggest that similar work was underway or planned with regard to a New Forest wide bypass solution.

4. The demonstration of `the public interest', as described in the National Park written evidence, had not been obvious to the review in the information provided to it about the above bypass work. The review considers that any risk to human health and public safety arising in connection with the Air Quality Management Area could be ameliorated by non bypass solutions outlined in the Hampshire County Council/Mott Gifford report.

5. The review group is of the opinion that the New Forest National Park Authority is most unlikely to approve the bypass for Lyndhurst, given its responsibilities and likely reaction to such an intrusion into the historic heart of the New Forest.

4.3.6.2 Regional policy

Background research and written evidence made reference to:

· The Regional Transport Strategy aiming to reduce the need to travel and the rate of traffic growth, promoting a `step change' in the quantity and quality of public transport and only promoting additional highway capacity when all other options have been exhausted.

· The Regional Transport Board (RTB) providing a steer on the allocation of public sector investment in transport infrastructure of regional and sub regional significance.

· An RTB prioritisation methodology being used to provide decision makers with advice on the allocation of funds for major schemes in accordance with the requirements identified in the South East Plan implementation plan. Schemes must cost at least £5 m.

· Prioritisation being based on three factors:

- policy compatibility with key regional strategies e.g. housing, employment, and other development and community services e.g. retail, health, social infrastructure, public services

- value for money

- deliverability, based on a combination of funding certainty and public acceptability. Public acceptability would be considered to be negatively affected by adverse environmental impacts at the local level, increases in accidents, increase in the cost of travel, adverse impact on the local economy.

Comments

1. The review group was struck by the similar expectations in regional as in

national transport policy, namely that additional highway capacity should only

be promoted when all other options had been exhausted. From evidence

received from a number of contributors, it is apparent to the review group that

a number of non bypass options could be pursued.

2. The terms of the RTB prioritisation methodology are such that the review group

did not anticipate any Lyndhurst focused or New Forest wide bypass routes scoring high in respect of the Board's definition of public acceptability, by reason of adverse environmental impacts, which are referred to in paragraph 4.3.7. Neither could the group envisage that a bypass would score high in terms of policy compatibility with key regional strategies.

4.3.6.3 Alignment with local policy

Background research and written evidence made reference to:

· Hampshire's Local Transport Plan (LTP) 2006 - 2010 setting out the County Council's transport strategy for the five years 2006 - 2011. The strategy acknowledges the issue of congestion:

`Congestion is an increasing problem, although it is not yet at levels experienced by other parts of the South East'

para. 1.18, Executive Summary, LTP 2006 - 2011

Lyndhurst is recognised as a congestion `hot spot' alongside others in the county. The LTP describes how Air Quality Action Plans are being developed to tackle air quality problems in different areas, including Lyndhurst.

· With regard to priorities for funding, the LTP acknowledges that as funds

are limited:

`priority will be given to measures that deal with the most severe

problems and/or that benefit the greatest number of people, with

particular weighting given to disadvantaged groups'

para. 1.27, Executive Summary, LTP 2006 - 2011

· The LTP including a New Forest Transport Strategy and a Five Year Strategy for Lyndhurst

· Key objectives of the New Forest Transport Strategy being:

- to promote new and improved passenger transport, cycling and walking facilities

- to provide imaginative local solutions that maintain the character of the Forest

- to ensure that any new major development is planned to provide alternative means of transport to the private car, as far as is possible

- to investigate measures such as road closures and road pricing

- to raise public awareness in order to change people's travel behaviour

- to identify targets and indicators for monitoring the strategy

- to improve road safety

- to ensure adequate accessibility for disabled people

- to reduce the level and impact of through traffic

· Key elements of the Lyndhurst Strategy being:

- the management of congestion by intelligent routeing

- improvements to traffic control e.g. signal operations

- improvements to traffic flow by altering junctions

- the impact assessment of the above measures on the Air Quality Management Area

- the investigation of a bypass for Lyndhurst as part of the long term strategy for Lyndhurst

· In respect of the bypass investigation, recognition that this would need to be approached outside the scope of the LTP, and that any future bypass proposals would need to be subject to a major scheme bid to government

Comments

1. Current Hampshire County Council Lyndhurst focused bypass optioneering work, and pursuit of bypass solutions by other stakeholders, is in keeping with Hampshire County Council transport policy (LTP).

2. However, the review group heard from the Executive Member that this work is being carried out even though a negative conclusion about a bypass for Lyndhurst had been reached by a New Forest Transport Strategy Panel sub group in 2006. The decision at that point was to deliver improvements to air quality and congestion by other means and £300,000 was identified in the capital programme to effect the improvements; this was subsequently put on hold, awaiting the outcome of the scrutiny review.

3. The review group were not able to come to a view about the effectiveness of recent New Forest wide capital projects, such as the Forest open top buses, HGV restrictions and the pilot of variable message signs on the M27, on congestion problems in Lyndhurst. There were differing messages on the outcome of the variable messaging pilot from New Forest District Council and Hampshire County Council.

4. It is the view of the review group that The Five Year strategy for the New Forest includes a variety of measures, such as HGV restrictions, that could be harnessed to ensure maximum impact on reducing Lyndhurst's congestion and air quality problems and would wish to see this pursued to full effect, within the context of the current optioneering work.

Recommended actions:

The review group recommends further trialling of the use of variable message signs on the M27 to direct drivers away from hot spots such as Lyndhurst and routeing tourists to park and ride pick up points for the New Forest open top tourist bus.

5. There is no mention in the Hampshire LTP of a New Forest wide bypass as such. The review group is cautious about supporting new road building of this nature, given the information from the Department of Transport `Bypass Demonstration Project Report', 1991, and the Countryside Agency/Campaign to Protect Rural England `Beyond Transport Infrastructure' report, 2006, suggesting that building more roads generates more traffic growth. However, the review group considers there is a need for a New Forest wide approach to Lyndhurst's problems, hand in hand with local improvements.

Recommended action:

Hampshire County Council should prioritise New Forest wide approaches to traffic management with a view to known hot-spots such as Lyndhurst benefiting from such measures.

4.3.7 Environmental impacts

4.3.7.1 Background research, written and oral evidence made reference to:

- the nature of sites in the New Forest of high nature conservation value:

Special Area of Conservation (SAC)

Special Protection Area (SPA)

Ramsar Site

Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)

- the range of Regulations and Advice related to conservation legislation that need to be taken into account in considering any route that went across The New Forest designated sites

- the series of structured and sequential steps that plans or projects affecting such sites need to be considered against

- the landscape consequences of any proposals, given that the UK is a signatory of the Landscape Convention

- the air quality problems in the High Street arising as a consequence of traffic congestion as opposed to traffic volume

- HGVs as 4% of the total traffic flow in the AQMA section of the High Street accounting for approximately 30% of the nitrogen oxide concentration

4.3.7.2 The review group studied maps illustrating the environmental

designations in the New Forest area surrounding Lyndhurst, and came

to an understanding of the areas covered by them as well as the

reasons they had been put in place. The evidence suggested that outer

bypass routes would be likely to impinge on such areas and, as a

consequence, would need to satisfy stringent environmental tests

before being allowed to progress.

For example, with regard to SPAs -

`once an SPA has been classified it is not open to the competent authority to permit destruction of protected habitat on the basis of sufficient habitat elsewhere within the site' Hampshire County Council

4.3.7.3 Evidence was received from Hampshire County Council and

Lyndhurst Parish Council on the detail of the ecology of the areas of

the New Forest surrounding Lyndhurst that the proposed Lyndhurst Parish Council bypass route would touch on. Evidence varied in

relation to the impact the Lyndhurst Parish Council route would have

on the protected environments and species. The review group was convinced by the Scoping Study for Habitats Regulation Assessment,

supported by Natural England, that potential adverse effects could arise

from the Lyndhurst Parish Council route. It concluded that the

evidence pointed to the need for any conceivable scheme that intrudes

on designated areas needing to be assessed in detail through an

Appropriate Assessment for its environmental impact in relation to

local, national and international law.

4.3.7.4 The case for arguing that not all the areas of the Forest have high

ecological value, as encountered in the evidence from Lyndhurst Parish

Council, did not seem to the review group, from other evidence

received, to imply that the more detailed Appropriate Assessment, under the Habitat Regulations, need not take place.

4.3.7.5 The group understood that, should an Appropriate Assessment go

ahead on any bypass or other road scheme, and reached the point where it identified that the scheme either would, or there was some uncertainty whether it would, adversely affect the integrity of a designated site, a further test of considering whether there were alternative solutions that would have lesser effect or avoid adverse effect would need to be carried out.

4.3.7.6 Evidence from Natural England emphasised that there was a high

burden of proof to show that all reasonable options had been fully

evaluated and tested. The optioneering work by Hampshire County

Council/Mott Gifford provided detailed appraisal information on all

route proposals and traffic management options. With regard to

bypass options, the report concludes that -

`...generally the bypass options are severely constrained by the environmental designations within and surrounding Lyndhurst, in particular the nature conservation designations within the National Park.' Hampshire County Council/Mott Gifford

Recommended options for further consideration are the two package options involving a link road and demand management measures, alongside the lowest cost demand management options. The group would hope that traffic modelling in the next stage of the work would make it clear whether non bypass solutions shift congestion away from the High Street to other parts of the village or not. Also, the extent and feasibility of property demolition associated with each option. The review group concurs with the conclusions of the Hampshire County Council/Mott Gifford study, and therefore inclines to the view that there should be no prioritisation of a Lyndhurst bypass solution, given the availability of alternative solutions to be considered.

4.3.7.7 The review was interested to learn that research was being undertaken

to assess the impact of standing traffic on the New Forest's eco

systems. While preliminary findings were showing there to be hot

spots there were no grounds for concluding at that stage that traffic

hold ups in Lyndhurst were damaging the Forest.

4.3.7.8 The review group noted that, should an Assessment under the Habitat

Regulations go to the final stage of permission being granted by the

Secretary of State, this decision could itself be overridden by the

European Commission.

Comments

1. Lyndhurst's relationship with surrounding areas of the Forest designated under conservation regulations means that any major road improvement is likely to impact on the integrity of those sites and therefore would need to satisfy stringent environmental tests before being allowed to progress.

2. While the review group recognises that each scheme would need assessing in its own right, the tests are rigorous and the margin of habitat loss that would be regarded as not having an effect on the site is extremely small, including habitat loss of 0.1% or less of a site.

3. From evidence received, the group considers that there is clear likelihood that any bypass route would have an adverse effect on designated sites surrounding Lyndhurst.

4. Two key tests that any assessment involves are those of `alternative solutions' and `the public interest'. The review group does not consider that it has sufficient information on which to comment on `the public interest', although evidence from Hampshire County Council referred to having been unable to find any instances in previous case law of a development causing harm to a designated site that had been approved on the grounds of public health. However, it has been struck by the variety of suggestions for solutions to Lyndhurst's congestion and air quality problems and, in particular, the options for further consideration identified by the recent optioneering work. That evidence obliges the group to think that there are, at present, alternative solutions to Lyndhurst's problems that would have lesser effect on designated sites than a bypass solution.

Recommended action:

In the light of viability and deliverability issues examined, the review group could not support the prioritisation of either a Lyndhurst focused bypass or a New Forest wide bypass at the present time. Concerns are those connected with the costs over benefits, as well as those relating to environmental impacts, given the stringent tests associated with an Appropriate Assessment under the Habitats Regulations, the potential adverse effects identified and the range of alternative measures that would be likely to have lesser environmental effect than a bypass, and have yet to be tested.

The group supports the further exploration of the two package options and the lower cost option of demand management measures, such as junction

improvements, one way system revisions etc. in the village, as identified by

Hampshire County Council/Mott Gifford (See page 17)

5 Conclusions

5.1 The key questions the review sought answers to were:

· what are the current traffic problems and highways issues in Lyndhurst ?

· what are the possible solutions to these problems ?

· of the range of possible solutions, would a bypass be a viable and deliverable option ?

5.2 Considerable information came to the review group's attention regarding the

village's traffic and highways problems, supplied by the range of stakeholders invited to give evidence, as well as members of the public. Issues raised included limitations of certain highways and junctions, the movement of Heavy Goods Vehicles, noise and air pollution, and severe congestion.

5.3 The review group recognises and sympathises with the traffic and highways

issues encountered by Lyndhurst residents as well as other drivers passing

through the village. However, from the evidence received, it inclines to the

view that these are in many ways intrinsically connected to those of

neighbouring villages and, indeed, to those of the new Forest as a whole, and

therefore need to be understood in that context.

5.4 The group is also convinced that air quality must be given equal weight to that

of congestion. Any measures to tackle the latter must be capable of addressing

the former, in particular, by keeping the traffic free flowing along the High

Street and the substantial removal of HGVs from the worst affected areas.

5.5 With regard to possible solutions to Lyndhurst's problems, these appeared to

be many and varied, some worked up with the primary purpose of relieving the air quality problem in the High Street, others such as the Lyndhurst Parish Council bypass proposal aimed at diverting unnecessary traffic away from the village and others such as the Hampshire County Council/Mott Gifford packages of options designed to meet a number both of these objectives. In addition, Brockenhurst Parish Council had given some thought to how to take a New Forest wide approach to traffic management in order to take off pressure in villages such as Lyndhurst and Brockenhurst.

5.6 The level of detail varied in relation to the possible solutions, as might be expected. The opinion formed by the end of the review was that detailed identification of both bypass options and non bypass options had been undertaken, though this information only became available towards the end of the review. These options now need to be fully explored with local people.

5.7 Although the focus of the review was on the merits of a bypass solution, the review group developed a concern that there were further opportunities to explore the scope for building on the work undertaken by Hampshire County Council in the 1990s. There was also a wish for short term measures to be put in place, for example to deal with the problems associated with HGVs in the village.

5.8 All the Lyndhurst focused bypass options made known to the review had been subject to a rigorous assessment against local criteria, cost and Department of Transport objectives. No evidence was received to suggest that similar work was underway or had been carried out with regard to a New Forest wide bypass solution.

5.10 While there appear to be no obvious design feasibility barriers, the review group are concerned that the costs of some of the bypass options, including the Lyndhurst Parish Council option, are too high in relation to the benefits.

5.11 The review group noted that regional and national transport policy required that additional highway capacity should only be promoted when all other options had been exhausted. From evidence received it is apparent that a number of non bypass solutions are available and therefore should be pursued.

5.12 In terms of the Regional Transport Board prioritisation methodology, the group could not envisage that a bypass would score highly in terms of policy compatibility with key regional strategies.

5.13 The review group cannot support additional road development, as outlined in the New Forest wide bypass proposal, in the light of background research that suggests that more road space generates extra traffic. The affordability and environmental considerations of such schemes would present insurmountable problems.

5.14 The nature of the environmental constraints are considerable for any bypass solution given that they would impact on one, or more than one, type of designated site. The pathway through an Appropriate Assessment under the EU Habitats Directive, for example, is stringent, and it is the conclusion of the review group that a bypass solution would be likely to fall under this Assessment. In addition, the group believes that National Park requirements in relation to the public interest and the exploration of alternatives, as well as the Verderer power of veto over this type of development under the New Forest Acts, would also work against a bypass solution.

5.15 The review group's conclusion is that they could not recommend to Hampshire County Council Cabinet that a bypass solution be prioritised as a major scheme bid to the Regional Transport Board in 2008. The review group does not believe that, at this point in time, it is possible to demonstrate that the stringent criteria relating to planning, environment and legislation can be met. Key reasons for this include:

· the full range of alternatives have yet to be explored

· the potential environmental impact is considerable

· it is likely that a solution for Lyndhurst will result in the problems moving elsewhere

5.16 Finally, in addition to advising against the prioritisation of a bypass for Lyndhurst, the review group supports the implementation of various short term measures, as well as the further exploration of the non bypass options prioritised in the Hampshire County Council/Mott Gifford Transport Study Report 2007.

6 Recommendations

A Hampshire County Council should exercise whatever influence it can,

either in its own right, or in partnership with other County Councils, to

ensure that manufacturers of satellite navigation systems include road

restriction information.

B Given current information from Lyndhurst traffic surveys about a large percentage of vehicles being local as opposed to through traffic, the review group would wish to see exploratory work on the potential for smarter travel choices in Lyndhurst reducing the need to travel by private car.

C As a short term measure, Hampshire County Council should seek the cooperation of the Highways Agency to make the signage on the M27 and at Cadnam directed at Heavy Goods Vehicles more explicit regarding restrictions on accessing Lyndhurst, except for lorries making local deliveries.

D Hampshire County Council should use its influence, together with partners, to support a review of the level of penalty fine for HGVs contravening the lorry restrictions to enhance its effect, and to ensure greater efforts are made by the police to enforce the restrictions.

E Hampshire County Council should put in place a communication plan which would make it clear to people what information they can expect to receive at different stages of the work to resolve Lyndhurst's traffic problems, and how they can contribute to and inform this process.

F Outcomes from the planned Hampshire County Council led local engagement, and the further consideration of options identified in the 2007 Study Report, should be communicated to the Environment and Transportation Select Committee in summer 2008 as part of the scrutiny monitoring work of the committee.

G The review group recommends further trialling of the use of variable message signs on the M27 to direct drivers away from congestion hot spots in the New Forest such as Lyndhurst and routeing tourists to park and ride pick up points for the New Forest open top tourist bus.

H Hampshire County Council should prioritise New Forest wide approaches to traffic management with a view to known hot-spots such as Lyndhurst benefiting from such measures.

I In the light of viability and deliverability issues examined, the review group could not support the prioritisation of either a Lyndhurst focused bypass or a new Forest wide bypass at the present time. Concerns are those connected with the costs over benefits, as well as those relating to environmental impacts, given the stringent tests associated with an Appropriate Assessment under the Habitats Regulations, the potential adverse effects identified and the range of alternative measures that would be likely to have lesser environmental effect than a bypass, and have yet to be tested.

J The group supports the further exploration of the two package options and the lower cost option of demand management measures, such as junction improvements, one way system revisions etc. in the village, as identified by Hampshire County Council/Mott Gifford. (See page 17)

Appendix One - Those contributing to the Review

Appendix Two - Programme for oral evidence meeting in public

Appendix Three - Background Documents

Appendix One: Those Contributing to the Review

Stakeholder group

Organisation

Local Authority:

Brockenhurst Parish Council

Copythorne Parish Council

Hampshire County Council

Lyndhurst Parish Council

Minstead Parish Council

New Forest District Council

Statutory Agencies

Hampshire Constabulary

Hampshire Fire and Rescue

Health Protection Unit

Natural England

New Forest National park

Verderers of the New Forest

Residents Groups

Friends of Brockenhurst

Lyndhurst, Emery Down and Bank Residents

Business Groups

Lyndhurst Chamber of Trade

Other Interest Groups

Council for National Parks

Lyndhurst Area Plan Steering Group

New Forest Association

New Forest Tourism Association

New Forest Transport Community Action Network

Public Representative

Member of Parliament

Bypass Interest Groups

New Forest Friends of the Earth

Members of the Public

Appendix Two : Programme for the oral evidence meeting in public

HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

ENVIRONMENT AND TRANSPORTATION SELECT COMMITTEE

SCRUTINY REVIEW: PRIORITISATION OF A LYNDHURST BYPASS

Select Committee style meeting, Monday, 5 November 2007

Lyndhurst Community Centre, 10.00 to 4.00pm

Agenda

Focus: Of the range of possible solutions to the traffic and highway issues in

Lyndhurst, could a bypass be a viable and deliverable option ?

Time

Line of Enquiry

Written evidence

10.00 - 11.00

Current traffic problems and highways issues in Lyndhurst

Witnesses:

- Cllr. Pat Wyeth, Nick Hunt, New Forest District Council

- John Charlesworth, Lyndhurst Parish Council

- Residents views:

a) Trevor English, Chairman, Lyndhurst

Chamber Of Trade

b) Tony Herbert, Chairman, Lyndhurst

Residents Association

Appendix One

Appendix Two

Appendix Three

Appendix Four

11.00 - 12.00

The range of bypass solutions and other options for Lyndhurst

Witnesses:

- John Charlesworth, Lyndhurst Parish Council

- Brockenhurst Parish Council

Appendix Two

Appendix Five

12.00 - 12.15

Witness:

- Oliver Crossthwaite - Eyre, Verderers of the New Forest

Appendix Six

12.15 - 1.00

LUNCH

1.00 - 1.30

Witness:

- Cllr M Kendal,Executive Member for the Environment

1.30 - 2.30

Acceptability of a bypass: environmental impacts on Lyndhurst and surrounding areas